WCML (renamed from "Something that may appear in the fu

stephenhornsey · Post by **stephenhornsey** » Wed Jan 21, 2004 10:21 am

I already have the L2B route and love it, but if i didnt have it, i would still be prepared to buy it just to be able run your WCML route, Barry, Its looking fantastic

barrymcguire9999 · Post by **barrymcguire9999** » Fri Jan 23, 2004 5:00 pm

barrymcguire9999 wrote:Something that I feel is neccessary to mention about WCML now, due to the fact that I have chosen to use certain objects from commercial route "London Brighton Express", anyone who wishes to download WCML must have LBE installed on their PC, this is due to the fact that the shapes from LBE are not allowed to be included with the download, but copied via a batch file same as with default MSTS shapes...............
Apologies to anyone who doesn't (yet!) have LBE!!

Barry

Hi all

As you all know, I am building the WCML from London-Liverpool/Preston and for the first 18 miles out of Euston, the 3rd rail Euston-Watford DC line runs alongside. For this, I am currently using EB 3rd rail track. Unfortunately, non LBE users will not be able to have this as EB shapes cannot be downloaded with the route due to it being a commercial route.
So, I am thinking of redoing this section with normal A........ track sections so everyone who wants to download WCML can do so regardless of whether they have LBE or not. LBE users can always edit the route when they have downloaded it and replace those track sections with EB........ sections. I have been kindly given alternative signals to use so they are no longer an issue.
Any comments welcome!!!!!

Cheers

Barry

cgood124 · Post by **cgood124** » Fri Jan 23, 2004 6:23 pm

just one question do you have permission from europeanbahn to use the shapes and objects?

cheers cgood124

barrymcguire9999 · Post by **barrymcguire9999** » Fri Jan 23, 2004 7:49 pm

cgood124 wrote:just one question do you have permission from europeanbahn to use the shapes and objects?

cheers cgood124

I was in discussion with them, but I think it will be too complicated so it's more than likely that I won't be using the EB track.................

Barry

barrymcguire9999 · Post by **barrymcguire9999** » Sun Jan 25, 2004 7:03 pm

I have decided to not use the EB 3rd rail track after all (although this will not be changed until route is complete as my copy will retain it.....) due to possible complications so Euston-Watford DC will be relaid with normal non 3rd rail A...... track although I would recommend LBE users, once downloaded, should edit route and replace back to EB..........shapes, also a default track texture will be used for the route, again users can change that to their liking once downloaded....
Anyway, no more mentions of 3rd rail tack from me!!!!!

So, happy to say, the route will be available to all!!!!

Barry

simont · Post by **simont** » Sun Jan 25, 2004 8:24 pm

Are you sure this is a good idea? It's best, I think, for everyone to have the exact same track- otherwise distributing activities becomes very hard.

barrymcguire9999 · Post by **barrymcguire9999** » Sun Jan 25, 2004 8:36 pm

simont wrote:Are you sure this is a good idea? It's best, I think, for everyone to have the exact same track- otherwise distributing activities becomes very hard.

I don't think (?) it would be a problem, as long as the track layout was not changed, i.e. no points moved and the exact EB equivalents used - for example A2t250mstrt replaced with EB2t250mstrt, saying that, some of the more experienced route builders may be able to comment on that???

Barry

jains15 · Post by **jains15** » Sun Jan 25, 2004 8:46 pm

would it not lead to track database problems?

there is possibility that standard track users would only be able to use activities written by someone using standard track, and vice versa for people using EB track. if i used standard track to write an activity EB track users would not be able to use it, or activity unpacker would throw a wobbly about track database.

I dunno. Standard practice for distribution software (free or otherwise) is only rely on users having the objects that u give them, do not rely on anything else. In this field, Xtracks is an exception but that is freeware. It is not good practice to use EB track IMHO. keep it simple, keep your life trouble free.

jon

barrymcguire9999 · Post by **barrymcguire9999** » Sun Jan 25, 2004 8:52 pm

Progress at 25/01/04, just 2 miles to Crewe, currently reached Basford Hall Junction at 156.20 miles, surprised myself by getting the mileage within 0.22 of real life considering it's built using a very basic method using route learning diagrams/sectional appendix and a rail atlas to
guess(!) where & what curves are where!!!! Oh, and miles are calculated using the very useful 1/4 mile ruler!!
(file id 279 I think)

http://album.atomic-systems.com/showPic ... WCML44.jpg

http://album.atomic-systems.com/showPic ... WCML42.jpg
What the route was built to run!!!!

only 37 miles to Liverpool!!!

Barry

barrymcguire9999 · Post by **barrymcguire9999** » Sun Jan 25, 2004 9:48 pm

jains15 wrote:would it not lead to track database problems?

there is possibility that standard track users would only be able to use activities written by someone using standard track, and vice versa for people using EB track. if i used standard track to write an activity EB track users would not be able to use it, or activity unpacker would throw a wobbly about track database.

I dunno. Standard practice for distribution software (free or otherwise) is only rely on users having the objects that u give them, do not rely on anything else. In this field, Xtracks is an exception but that is freeware. It is not good practice to use EB track IMHO. keep it simple, keep your life trouble free.

jon

Something I will test during beta testing then................

Christopher125 · Post by **Christopher125** » Sun Jan 25, 2004 10:05 pm

Hi

Very simply - it would not work. The UKFS track is built with a different philosophy - the geometry is completely different and it is built with the correct 6ft way.

Chris

barrymcguire9999 · Post by **barrymcguire9999** » Sun Jan 25, 2004 10:08 pm

Christopher125 wrote:Hi

Very simply - it would not work. The UKFS track is built with a different philosophy - the geometry is completely different and it is built with the correct 6ft way.

Chris

Hi Chris,

I haven't actually used UKFS..........just normal default track (I don't have UKFS anyway).

Barry

stephenhornsey · Post by **stephenhornsey** » Mon Jan 26, 2004 12:29 am

2 miles to Crewe

, thats fantastic Barry

jjules · Post by **jjules** » Mon Jan 26, 2004 11:29 am

Bring.It.On!

That does it, those words are going in my signature!

lateagain · Post by **lateagain** » Mon Jan 26, 2004 6:46 pm

Barry,

Don't worry about the third rail track. Worry about the scenery. IMHO you can suspend disbelief on the third rail but, as you raised the topic of EB, you can't persuade a Londoner that Finsbury Park is in the Country!

Keep up the good work

Geoff